IfE^iBByyffrgpjj^iBHjagiag
____ . _ .,
--'; ~"'-*r*KZ>*fS!S&&r:'f-
Fund
':tjl
>:*11
"''.we-ii-.flSti
.^fc^V
:(:f^::f^t;/\;;:^ff:^
'"'"-': '"':''-';.;.. '"'- ;.' -;: '.'.-- V-1.-. v /'-'. r '-^^LL^:-^rt.-v>^^^ ^Ill^illgli^i^l^*^
fl?;.W^:iS^^^^^S|?pMSI& -s
US!
._.
.»Om«.,.I-, ;,-^ .^:-,,,,._,:._.-V,.,«:-..«_:: J
-------
State Revolving Fund Program
>
flG Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program is a modern and efficient method of financ-
ing environmental infrastructure projects (e.g., wastewater treatment, agricultural and urban runoff,
stormwater, and many others). The SRF Program: \
H Buys up to 4 times more environmental protection for the federal dollar than traditional
one-time grants, over a twfnty-year period
Requires only an initial investment to create a fund to finance environmental infrastructure
for the foreseeable future
H Provides substantial savings to local communities and stimulates their economies. Every bil-
lion dollars invested in the SRF program, supports between 16,000 and 22,000 jobs in the
construction and related industries. '
M Pays for Clean Water Act mandates
Offers substantial state and local flexibility
I Needs only limited federal administration and oversight
Is a wise investment for the environment
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund continues to be a sound investment for the future:
i
H Continued investment by the federal government and the states over the next few years will
allow the SRF program to provide in excess of $2.0 billion in loans annually for a long time
into the future
The SRF program can help us address nearly all the remaining threats to our water
resources. Unlike previous programs, the SRF can address a wide variety of environmental
problems, including agricultural and urban runoff, stormwater, combined sewer overflows,
estuary management projects, as well as traditional wastewater :
Investments in environmental infrastructure will continue to stimulate local economies
Covtr Photographs (loll); Tommy Dodson
Unicom Stock Photo
(right): Ttioo Stngells
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
-------
Message from the Administrator
It is with great pride that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this "Report of Progress" for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program. The SRF is a model of the kind of program that will be needed for
our new generation of environmental protection. It stands as a highly successful example of a s tate-managed program,
designed to meet community-based environmental needs and offers a very flexible way of protecting our water
resources.
The SRF program has been very successful and, because of its many advantages, will continue to be an intelligent
investment in the future. Let me highlight some of the program's many advantages:
m First, because of the reaving nature of the SRF program, an initial investment by the |federal and state gov-
ernments can result in till/construction of up to four times as many pollution control projects over a twenty-
year period as could be constructed with traditional federal grants. Simply stated, that's four times the "bang-
for-the-buck." f^'-"'" ---' ' '""' "" :' ''- :'-'.-'-:'."'" '" " ''. '.'''". - '::':' ' -^V."'..'.( ' " V ;'..";. "
3 Second, the SRF progfeh'can provide loans at rates far below those available
through other sources, riffllting in substantial savings to communities over the life
of the loan. jp-
8 Third, investments in Sh'vironmental infrastructure create jobs and stimulate local
economic development.''
Fourth, the SRF program funds mandates contained in the Clean Water Act. The pro-
gram is capitalized 83 percent by the federal government and 17 percent by the states.
H Fifth, because of the program's vast flexibility, loans may be targeted to the particular
environmental needs of each state, including traditional wastewater, contaminated runoff
from urban and agricultural areas, estuary management projects, and many others. It may
also offer even lower or no-interest loans to small and disadvantage^ communities.
B Finally, because the SRF program offers states a high degree of flexibility and con-
trol, the program operates very efficiently at the federal level. Currently EPA has
just seventy-five people nationwide administering this program with over $16 billion
in assets. The SRF is an efficient, streamlined program and should serve as a model
for our efforts to reinvent government. t '
.
EPA continues to work in partnership with the states to improve the SRF program. For example, this year we are
beginning the process of integrating the SRF program with the ecosystem or watershed management concept.
Watershed management means targeting resources to the highest priority problems in the watersheds most in need
of protection or restoration. In 1995, the states and EPA will be searching for better ways to, get SRF funds to our
most precious water resources. ' ,
To my mind, the SRF program is one of the most sensible investments we can continue to make. We should ensure
that this program reaches its full potential by continuing the capitalization of the program as suggested in propos-
als for the Clean Water Act.
Carol M. Browner
-------
A New Era in Clean Water Funding
With the passage Jf the Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 19&7, the U.S. Congress
ushered in a new era if clean water, funding. The new CWA. called for the replacement of the long-
running federal Constpjction Grants program with an innovative State Revolving Fund (SRF) pro-
gram. Under the SRF program, each state (and Puerto Rico) created revolving foan funds to provide
independent and permanent sources of low-cost financing for a range of environmental infrastruc-
ture projects. Funds tjestablish SRF programs are provided through federal government grants (83
percent of total capitalization) and state matching funds (17 percent of total capitalization).
Currently, all fifty state!'and Puerto Rico are operating successful SRF programs. ^Capitalization began
in 1988 and now totalfmore than $16 billion. As payments are made on loans, funds are recycled to
fund additional water protection projects. If capitalized as planned, the SRF will be: available to play a.
key role in funding water pollution control infrastructure far into the future. ;
SRF Continues a Critical Funding Role
Since 1972, the Nation has invested wisely in
water pollution control infrastructure. Today, the
U.S. enjoys what is probably the most advanced
network of sewage treatment facilities in the
world. Since 1972, the investment of federal
funds in this vast network has totaled over $66
billion. Many more dollars have also been con-
tributed by local and state governments.
The Construction Grants program and, now, the
SRF program have driven the extension of the
public health and environmental protection ben-
efits associated with modern sewage treatment to
more and more of the population.
Data included in this report are from a wide variety of sources, including EPA's 1992 Needs Survey, the 1992 National
Water Quality Inventory, the 1994 Annual SRF Survey (Ohio Water Development Authority), and the 1990
National Shellfish Register (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). .
4^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
-------
Our Investment in Environmental Infrastructure
Has Paid Off
1972, the number of peo|
facilities has nearly doubled. In 1!
was served by adequate facilities.
over 62 percent of the population.
ering that during this time both the!
pollution flowing through our sewerS
e served by modern sewage, treatment
g,,,qnly 42 percent.of the population.
^1992,; that number had increased to,
ii|^c.hievement is, impressive consid-
Jatipn's population and the volume of
gtems increased by nearly 30 percent.
Although the amount of sewage flowing to the Nation's
wastewater facilities increased dramatically during this peri-
od, pollutant loads discharged by municipal sewage treat-
ment systems actually declined by 2.4 million tons per day
or 36 percent to the rate of 4.3 million tons per day.
As a direct result of the Clean Water Act and the funding available
through the Construction Grants and SRF programs, the quality of lakes,
rivers, and other water bodies improved dramatically from 1972 to 1992.
Although there are significant methodological differences between the
assessments conducted in 1972 and 1992, they do indicate a significant
magnitude of progress.
-------
The SRP Is Flexible and Offers Many Benefits
of the most compelling benefits of the SRF program is that it provides communities with a per-
manent and independent source of funding for environmental infrastructure projects. Repayments from
low-interest loans made from initial federal and state capitalization funds can be1 recycled for future
loans. If these state programs are managed successfully, the funding cycle will continue indef-
initely.
The SRF Program Offers States A High Degree of Flexibility
In adopting the SRF program, Congress gave the states greater flexibility to struc-
ture their SRFs to best meet their needs. States can use capitalization funds for a
variety of financial assistance options and each option can be customized to match
specific state needs. Assistance options available .include:
m
Low interest loans for communities '
Refinancing, purchasing, or guaranteeing local debt to lower the cost
of borrowing for communities
Purchasing bond insurance for local debt to increase bond ratings for
communities
Use of capitalization funds to leverage the SRF (i.e., issue bonds using
capitalization funds as security) and, as a result, providfe up to three times
as much funding for projects
SRF Loan Program Features:
|_ Interest Rate: _0%_to Market rate _ _ _ _ ,
- Repayment Period: tip to 20 years
Adjustable-rate loans, stepped payments, balloon payments
I" allowed a,t state discretion
^ Loans coyer 100% of eligible costs . . . , _ __ ^
f Repayment begins one-year after project,start-up, (poten-
[ tially resulting in additional savings to the community) \
3U Loans available for all treatment alternatives
Loans can cover excess capacity, collection
systems, advanced treatment solutions
The SRF Program Offers Major Funding Potential
The SRF program is clearly a powerful funding instrument that is playing a major role in addressing the
billions of dollars needed to fund much-needed environmental infrastructure projects. Because of the
revolving nature of the SRF program, it can provide about four times the level of funding over a twenty-
year period as compared to a traditional one-time grant (see graph above and to the left). This is the case
because, unlike grants that are available only once, SRF loan repayments provide a continuing source of
low-cost funding. ;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
-------
Approximate
F savings with SRF
it* "* twenty-year loan
Typical municipal borrowing
rate in commercial market
Average SRF rate
Lowest SRF rate
7.5 % _
k
3.0 %
0.0 %
30%
50%
The SRF Program Provides Significant Savings to Communities
The most significant advantage of the SRF program is the dramatic savings a community can realize by financing projects with
SRF loans. Because of the program's low interest rates, the SRF program is contributing significantly toward making needed
environmental infrastructure projects more affordable. The chart below shows that a typical SRF loan will save a community
approximately 30 percent in total project costs as p_ ,
compared to financing the same project on the f^ SRF Loan Savings i
commercial market. The SRF program allows states
flexibility to adjust interest rates to meet the needs
of small and disadvantaged communities, therefore,
the savings may be as much as a 50 percent reduc-
tion in total project costs with a no-interest SRF
loan. Because of the low interest rates provided by -
the SRF program, communities are saving billions
of dollars.
The SRF Program Provides Economic Benefits to Communities
Aside from the monetary savings available through the SRF, there are many other benefits associated with investments in envi-
ronmental infrastructure, including improved recreational and scenic values, protection of public health, conservation of ecol-
ogy, and stimulation of local economies.
Investments in environmental infrastructure directly^ stimulate local economic development. For instance, investments in
wastewater infrastructure attract commercial and industrial development. Such growth leads to increased jobs and cash flow
into the local economy, as well as increased revenues for local governments. In the short term, SRF investments also sup-
port between 16,000 and 22,000 jobs for every billion dollars invested in the construction and associated industries.
Because our lives are centered around our water resources, we have a direct stake in their protection and conservation. Over
the long term, such investments lead to increased prosperity and a better overall quality of life. Witness the revitalization of
many major urban areas during the 1970s and 1980s, including Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati, New York,
Savannah, New Orleans, Austin, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Chicago, which invested in environmental
infrastructure to clean up their waterfronts.
I
The SRF Program is Efficient
Because of the flexibility built into the program and the streamlined federal requirements, the SRF has accelerated the
pace of construction of needed environmental infrastructure projects. Specifically, the average project constructed under
the previous Construction Grants program took approximately seven years to reach completion. Under the SRF program
that time has been reduced to under five years. ;
The SRF program is also a model of efficiency in its relationship to the states. In fact, the SRF is probably the most efficient
program of its kind in the federal government. The SRF was created to be a state-run program with little federal oversight and
great state flexibility. In the eight years since its inception, EPA has worked hard to keep to this ideal. For instance, the
Agency's regulations implementing the program contain no significant additional requirements beyond those required in the
authorizing legislation. Additionally, EPA administers this vast program of over $16 billion with just seventy-five positions
most of them in EPA's ten regional offices far fewer than any other comparable federal funding program.
s
-------
SRF Program Flexibility Results In innovative State Solj
The nine states highlighted below illustrate the flexibility and innovations possible with the SRF progra
Funding for AH Types of Environmental
Infrastructure Projects
Besides offering loans for traditional wastewater facili-
ties, Washington and California led the Nation in
using the SRF program loans to address agricultural,
rural, and urban runoff (nonpoint sources). Other
states including Ohio, Wyoming, and Delaware are
also funding these kinds of projects.
Coordinating with Other Federal
Funding Programs
Arkansas and other states including New
Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, and Washington
coordinate SRF assistance with other federal
programs (e.g., Rural Development
Administration loans/grants) to maximize ben-
efits for communities.
Accelerating Use of Funds
Alabama and Kansas have found ways to
increase the pace of their programs and, as a result,
the pace of facility construction. Other states
include New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Arkansas, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, South
Dakota, Connecticut, Michigan, Virginia and
Qeorgia.
Designing SRF Financing to
Minimize Borrowing Costs
Texas, Minnesota, and New York have
designed very strong SRF programs and have
been recognized by the financial markets
with AAA bond ratings.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
-------
the states are tailoring their programs along these lines.
Integrating with the Watershed Approach
Ohio is leading the way in integrating the SRF program
with watershed-based plans to assure funding is provided
for high-priority projects. Many other states are moving in
this direction.
CT
Combining SRF with Other State Financing
Programs
Connecticut has its own state environmental infrastruc-
ture financing program which operates in concert with its
SRF program to maximize benefits to communities. Other
states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
and Maine have similar programs.
Increasing Funding with Innovative Financial
"Leveraging" of the SRF
New York's leveraging approach uses federal capitalization
funds as security for bonds to provide a high level of funding
($2 billion for loans). Other states with effective leveraging
programs include Minnesota, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland,
Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado.
Targeting Assistance to Small/Disadvantaged
Communities
Virginia has done much to ensure that the low cost bene-
fits of the SRF program reach small and disadvantaged
communities. Other states include Ohio, Kentucky,
Arkansas, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana,
Minnesota, West Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota and Utah.
Adjusting the SRF to Match the Financial
Conditions of Communities
Tennessee has developed a very sophisticated program
to tailor interest rates and repayment periods to the eco-
nomic condition of each community. Maryland,
Montana, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and others
also operate their programs similarly.
-------
The SRF Program Finances A Vast Array
of Environmental Infrastructure Projects
TOG Construction Grants program (1972-1990) was devoted primarily to building wastewater systems.
The SRF program takes a broader approach. In addition to traditional municipal wastewater, the SRF can
finance a broad array of environmental projects to address agricultural, rural, and urban runoff, contami-
nated urban stormwater, combined sewer overflows, and even estuary management projects.
Pftoto. Tom Slack/Tim Stacks Associates
Photo: Tom Stack/Tom Stack & Associates
Municipal Wastewater
Of course, the SRF funds the con-
struction of traditional municipal
wastewater treatment systems. Not
surprisingly, since its inception, the
majority of SRF funds have, in fact,
been devoted to these very impor-
tant projects.
Combined Sewer
Overflows and Stormwater
Besides traditional wastewater pro-
jects, the SRF program makes loans
to correct flows of raw sewage from
"combined sewer overflows" (CSOs)
and to address the effects of contam-
inated urban stormwater. Since
1988, the SRFs have made approxi-
mately 150 loans worth $1.0 billion
to correct these serious problems.
| Combined Sewer Overflows J
tjn.many older cities, sanitary and .
testorm sewers . are combined.
j? Periods of high rain often cause
|g-"overflows." Raw sewage over-
ptri lit. i
ferflpws its normal route to the
m" 4 i ' j . *
lg-sewage treatment plant and is
^carried directly to rivers, lakes ,
n 'and coastal areas. ,;
| Stormwater ;
jpAs stormwater runs off city ;
|.L-streets, lawns, and construction ;
fesites it picks up many pollutants .:
p^"r L ' -- ^
tand may result in very serious ;;
fcwater quality impacts. In fact, :
gjEEA's"''1#?2;^Water"''' Quality"''1
g=f~"- * - -T; ; . " -- ' «
ipjnyentpry cites urban runoff and 4
EL,.,-. ..', . .- , ., 5- , , ^,. - _ . ,., 5t(
jUStorm sewejs as; the third leading 5
k,cause ,pf .impairments to rivers,
*s^^--'-T ,,:", ,'," , ,,- ... _ - ,,jj
P' ikes, and estuaries.
:*'>/!«.. «-(»..«'!' ; - -^ ',',,;,':-.!,,-'« ,^
Pftoto; John CcncatoslfTom Stack & Associates
Agriculture and Urban Runoff ;
The SRFs have also made approximately 100 loans worth $100 million to
address contaminated runoff from agricultural and urban land (known in
the CWA as "nonpoint sources"). Runoff from agricultural lands is the
most significant problem affecting our Nation's water resources today. The
SRF can fund projects that address pollution from a wide variety of diffuse
sources, including agriculture, silviculture, and abandoned mines. The SRF
program is also available to fund estuary management projects. Because of
the vast flexibility inherent in the SRF program, the program is well-suit-
ed to accommodate the watershed approach. The watershed approach is
EPA's new model for program implementation and is based on the premise
of addressing the most serious problems first.
10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
-------
Small and Disadvantaged Communities
and the SRF
IVIclflaCJGrS of sj|||lLandJdisadvantaged communities confront a variety of challenges when plan-
ning water pollution comrlgl projects. One major challenge is securing funding for environmental projects
at a time when demangs from other programs and other community services such as education and
police protection areTHcreasing.
In small communities, p%r capita income is generally lower than in major metropolitan areas. Costs are also
typically higher on a pej[person basis for wastewater and other environmental facilities. Tims, many small
communities have difficulty gaining access to long-term credit.
The SRF program is gaipng popularity as an important source of funding for
small and disadvantageojcommunities. In a recent state-sponsored survey:
40 states reported about 650 small community SRF loans
(population^,000 or less) . that's over 25 percent of the
total numbfr of SRF loans in the country
21 states reported a total of 341 loans for disadvantaged com-
munities or^about 14 percent of the total number of loans
Photo: Byron Austin/Tom Stack & Associates
Small and disadvantaged communities benefit from the SRF program for several reasons. First, many states
offer very low interest rates on loans to small and disadvantaged communitiesproviding the boost needed to
get projects started. For example, the SRF can make a 0 percent loan to a community for 20 years saving
the community 50 percent of total project cost over a similar commercial loan at 7.5 percent. Other SRF pro-
gram benefits important to small and disadvantaged communities include the following:
H Loans may fund appropriate or alternative technology approaches (i.e., decentralized, low-
tech solutions)
Loans may fund collection systems, reserve capacity, and projects designed to support eco-
nomic development
IS The program can also provide customized technical assistance to small and disadvantaged
communities
It is important that small communities identify all
options that are available for financing wastewater pro-
jects; SRF loans can be combined with other federal
and state funding assistance. By combining funding
sources, such as grants from the Rural Development
Administration, communities can make their projects
even more affordable.
Photo: Theo Singelis
11
-------
Current investment in the SRF
just eight years of investment by the federal government and the states, over $16 billion is cur-
rently available for loans for environmental infrastructure projects.
SRF Investment ($ billion)
Federal SRF Investment (FY88-FY95) ; $ .11.1
Required State Match $ 2.0
Proceeds from Leveraging (bond proceeds, etc.) $ 5.2
Bond Reserve Funds ($ 2.3)
Amount Available for Loans ' $ 16.0
Photo: Bab Wmsett/Tom Stack & Associates
Future investment in the SRF
WflllQ the Nation has made tremendous progress in protecting our water resources since the early
1970s, there is still much to do to clean up and protect our valuable water resources. For instance, EPA's
1992 National Water Quality Inventory showed
that roughly 38 percent of the assessed river
miles, 44 percent of assessed lake acres, and 32
percent of assessed estuary square miles were
impaired. In addition, 37 percent of the Nation's
shellfish beds are restricted, limited or closed,
indicating significant remaining coastal pollu-
tion problems. A vast majority of this pollution
comes from sources that can be addressed by pro-
jects funded by SRF loans (see table to left).
12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
-------
1
EPA publishes the biennial Needs Survey to document, in financial terms, the needs for various types of
environmental infrastructure projects. The 1992 Needs Survey contains over $137 billion in needs over
twenty years for projects ranging from traditional ..,...;,_.,...,,..
wastewater treatment to agricultural and urban **- ;
JM* ' ' .:'- . x
nonpoint sources. Addressing needs of this mag- (L^,J9?2 Funding Needs Survey {$ Billions)
nitude will require communities to tap into all |g^--:-r'- . , ' ; : . V ' ""f-" ' > '' -
available financing sources. The SRF program IK ^Traditional Facilities |
will be an important and significant part of com- j?frr Combined Sewers & Stormwate)1
munity funding solutions. (Needs Survey esti- |f~~ Agriculture/Silviculture
mates are for projects which are needed today and
include reserve capacity for the next 20 years.)
/Other
, Total,
$ 85.8.
'.$ 41.3
$ 8.8
.'$ 1.2
$137.1
Because the SRF program is well established and recognized as the most efficient method, of financing
environmental infrastructure projects, the Administration has proposed a plan that would continue capi-
talization of the SRF program through the year 2004
(see chart to left).
Continued investment in the SRF program as indicat-
ed, will establish the 51 SRF programs as permanent
and independent sources of low-cost financing for
important environmental infrastructure projects.
Further, this level of capitalization will allow the SRFs
to issue more than $2.0 billion in. loans annually for
the foreseeable future (see chart below).
Photo: Theo SingeKs
13
-------
Benefits of Future Investment
in the SRF program
It is evident, even considering the impressive progress we have made over
the last twenty years, that there is still much to do to protect the Nation's
water resources. Continued investment in the SRF program can further this
progress in many ways. As was mentioned earlier, investment in a revolving
fund program like the SRF has the distinct advantage of providing four times
more environmental protection than traditional one-time grants.
If the federal and state governments continue to invest ir; the SRF program,
we can expect our environmental conditions to continue to improve. In
fact, if we continue to invest in the SRF program (as stated on the previous
page) we can expect that sewage treatment plants will continue to be
upgraded and improved as indicated in the chart to the left.
Similarly, we can expect that more and more of the
population will be served by modern and efficient
sewage treatment (see chart to the right).
We can also expect that more and more pollutants will
be removed from our waterways (see chart below).
If we continue to invest in the SRF program as outlined
earlier in this report, we can expect the overall condi-
tion of water resources to continue to improve hand-in-
hand with the continued economic development asso-
ciated with such investments in environmental infra-
Structure.
To continue progress toward the goal of protecting "the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity" of the Nation's water resources as established in
the Clean Water Act, we will need to continue to invest in our most
effective programs such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. We
will also need to ensure our efforts are directed, through sound science
and good management, toward solving the most significant problems in
those areas that are most in need of protection. The SRF program is wor-
thy of our continued focus and investment.
14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
-------
State Revolving
State Contacts
Fund
ALABAMA
Department of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
ALASKA
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Facilities Construction and Operation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801 -1795
ARIZONA
Arizona Wastewater Management Authority
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
ARKANSAS
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology
Construction Assistance Division
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
CALIFORNIA
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. BOX944214
Sacramento, CA 94244
COLORADO
Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
CONNECTICUT
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Management
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
DELAWARE
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 1401
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
FLORIDA
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Twin Towers Office Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
GEORGIA
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Suite 1058, East Tower
Butler Street
Atlanta, GA 30334
HAWAII
Department of Health
Environmental Management Division
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 309
Honolulu, HI 96814
IDAHO
Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton, Statehouse Mail
Boise, ID 83720-9000
ILLINOIS
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62706-9276
INDIANA
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Facilities Development Branch
100 North Senate Avenue
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
IOWA
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Henry A. Wallace Building
500 East Grand
DesMoines, IA 50319
KANSAS
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
J Street and 2 North
Building 283
Topeka, KS 66620-0110
KENTUCKY
Kentucky Infrastructure Authority
Finance and Administration Cabinet
Capital Annex, Room 261
Frankfort, KY 40601
ing Administration
"'
LOUISIANA
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 8221 5
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-221 5
MAINE
Maine Municipal Bond Baj
45 University Drive
P.O. Box 2268
Augusta, ME 04338
MARYLAND
Maryland Water Quality F
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21 224
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust
One Ashburton Place, 12tj}Fjoor __
Boston, MA 021 08 fer
MICHIGAN -l^""
Michigan Department of Neural Resources
, Municipal Facilities Section^
Community Assistance Division
P.O. Box 30273 fe-;
Lansing, Ml 48909 t _
MINNESOTA L^
Minnesota Public Facilities_Au,tborrty
Department of Trade and Economic Development
500 Metro Square . '-
121 7th Place East 9,-
St. Paul, MN 551 01 -2146 ~
MISSISSIPPI
Commission on Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 2030S r
Jackson, MS 39209 f^_
MISSOURI
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176 S"
JsKerson CHy, MO 65102~:"'~ ::::' .-;' ..... ;
MONTANA C
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences r.~" ' - ,
Cogswell Building ;;:-"
Helena, MT 59620
NEBRASKA
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
1200 N Street, The Atrium, Suite 400
P.O. Box 98922 "
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 ~. "'..''
NEVADA
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
333 West Nye Lane
Capital Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Wastewater Engineering Bureau
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
NEW JERSEY
Department of Environmental Protection
Municipal Wastewater Assistance
1333 Brunswick Ave.
CN-425
Trenton, NJ 08625
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico Costruction Programs Bureau
Environmental Improvement Division
1190 St. Francis Drive, Room 2210
Santa Fe, NM 87502
NEW YORK
Environmental Facilities Corporation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233 ,
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
P.O. Box 27687
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakota Department of Health and Consolidated
Laboratories
Environmental Health Section
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58505-5520
OHIO
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance
P.O. Box 163669
1800~Water Mark Drive -
Columbus, OH 43266-1049
OKUHOMA *~
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
600 North Harvey Avenue
PO Box 150
Oklaripma City, OK 73101-0150
ORECiON
Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsiylvahia Infrastructure Investment Authority
Keystone Building, 4th Floor
22 South 3rd Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
PUERTO RICO
Envirp.nmental Quality Board
Water, Quality Area
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
RHODE ISLAND
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Management
235 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908
SOUTH CAROLINA
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
SOUTH DAKOTA
SoutrjJDakota Department of Environment and Natural
. Resources
Joe Fos's Building, 523 East Capitol
Pierre( SD 57501-3181
TENNESSEE
Department of Health and Environment
L & C "Tower
401 Church Street, 21st Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1533
TEXAS _
Texas Water Development Board
Engineering Division
P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station
Austiri.TX 78711-3231
UTAH
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Elox 14480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
VERMONT
Agency of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Conservation
Public Facilities Division
One Cannery Building
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
VIRGINIA
Virginja State Water Control Board
Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
WASHINGTON
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
WEST VIRGINIA
Construction Assistance Branch
Division of Environmental Protection
Water Resources Section
617 Broad Street
Charleston, WV 25301
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Clean Water Fund Loan Section
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
WYOMING
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0600
-------
^^^^jp'^^^^^^/^JS^i.f^'H^r^^^lnSffi^Sli^^^
!iiii.i!l! IV"1' -'!! liF1' \"c°l 'S.r ' ' "g I w MM riij'?'''^..!^' ? Wiirflw Iffii raJJIfg?
------- |